Of course it went over your head because you didn't pay attention to the article. Only Electric Universe thought they were smart for posting a
rebuttal.

So I will break it down just for electric universe. The article is about warming in the "Southern Hemisphere" the poster thinks because it is cold in
Chicago the two were related.

I poked fun at the poster because they didn't realize the article is about the "Southern Hemisphere" it was funny for those who got the joke now you
are part of the joke. Even those who didn't get the joke were smart enough not to poke at it probably because they realized there was something they
were missing.

Science is frequently "wrong," and admits as much openly. Science is a process, not a set of stone tablets and proclamations. Unlike
pseudoscience, which claims to be infallible, mixes cause and effect, and can't tell the difference between a hypotheses and data.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak
...
Hasn't changed much in the past 100 years either. Unless you consider a change (up and down) of about 0.01% to be much. lasp.colorado.edu...

Riiight... That's what Phage would like you to believe...

BTW, what Phage will try to do next is to post a graph which only shows the differences in "sunpot numbers" from one cycle to the next, and he will
proclaim that is proof of AGW. But what he won't tell you is that those graphs he will give you will not show you how at solar minimum magnetic
storms, and TSI had been increasing. He knows this, or he should since he has been posting his "beliefs" for many years on ATS about this subject
and should have realized this a long time ago.

Did the poster specifically state that he believes Illinois is in the southern hemisphere?...

Just because a person says "it is also cold in my neck of the woods" in response to an article about cold in the southern hemisphere it doesn't mean
"the person believes north america is part of the southern hemisphere"... The person is just adding the fact that it is also cold in his/her neck of
the woods...

BTW, the title of the thread is "the world is warming faster than we thought"... Last I checked the northern regions of the U.S. are also part of
"the world". Or isn't it according to grimpachi?

If it's a "natural cycle", what's the nature of the cycle? What's the physical mechanism? What are the observational signatures? How does it
override the effect from increased greenhouse effect?

Do science, and deny ignorance.

Oh right, you mean like how is it possible to blame climate change on AGW when the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 yeas before the
height of the industrial revolution?...

Or how can you blame climate change on anthropogenic CO2 when in the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect yet climate
change is largely being blamed on "anthropogenic" CO2 by some people?...

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Agenda 21 isn't about the saving the earth. It's about control. Remember that when it starts making an impact in your part of the world.

Haven't you heard/read some of the responses made by many of the AGW proponents about "allowing developing countries like China, India, and Russia to
increase their CO2 emissions meanwhile lowering those of the U.S. and the western world will save the world"?

It seems that unfortunately even to the AGW proponents wealth redistribution, meanwhile some countries would be allowed to emit more CO2 than any of
the western nations, is a sound tactic to "save the world"... After all, how can it not "save the world" to tax to death western consumers meanwhile
allowing China, india, Russia, etc to emit as much CO2 as they want to?...

Hey, the western world was allowed to do it, we can postpone "the end of the world by CO2" as long as the western world lower their emissions while
paying taxes to be redistributed to the rich meanwhile China, Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions to unprecedented
levels... Right?... After all, "we have to save the world"...

I think you're missing a big point when you say we let China and India and other third world countries pollute. We really can't Make them do
anything. The bigger point though is that just because India pollutes doesn't mean that we should. We should be better and keep our own backyard
clean. Also any pollution control is better than none. Maybe the effect isn't huge but we know that localized pollution has big effects...take LA
and the Smog there for example.

Well, the problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Remember that you are living in a world where life is carbon based and in which life needs CO2.

BTW CO2 is not part of smog. CO2 is invisible and is not a hydrocarbon. Not to mention that higher levels of CO2 than at present is actually good for
all life. BTW, you have to understand the difference between CO2 and the real pollutants in smog.

Smog is composed of hydrocarbons (made entirely from hydrogen and carbon) carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic
compounds. Trying to go after CO2, by sequestration, and you are not only sequestering anthropogenic CO2, but you will also sequester natural CO2
emissions. By doing this worldwide food shortages will become much worse. not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 all plants and green
biomass will need more water which will mean less potable water for humans and animals.

To you it might sound ok and dandy that certain world leaders and world organizations do not want to impose CO2 emissions in developing countries, and
that for some reason you might think "it will stop climate change and save the world". But take this in perspective.

China is one of the most polluted nations in the world and right now its CO2 emissions are 29% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2. That is
"right now". BTW, why do you think that even during the time when China's CO2 emissions were not even up to those of the U.S. that China air
pollutants have been worse than in any other nation?

China, alongside Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions and world leaders are agreeing to allow this.

Western nations have been improving their technologies to make carbon source fuels "cleaner" from the real toxic gasses found in "smog". China hasn't
been doing this, and neither will India, or Russia, or any of the other countries that "will be allowed to increase their emissions. That's what
"world leaders and world organizations' are agreeing with. You think this is really about "saving the planet"?

Well, the problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Remember that you are living in a world where life is carbon based and in which life needs CO2.

BTW CO2 is not part of smog. CO2 is invisible and is not a hydrocarbon. Not to mention that higher levels of CO2 than at present is actually good for
all life. BTW, you have to understand the difference between CO2 and the real pollutants in smog.

Smog is composed of hydrocarbons (made entirely from hydrogen and carbon) carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic
compounds. Trying to go after CO2, by sequestration, and you are not only sequestering anthropogenic CO2, but you will also sequester natural CO2
emissions. By doing this worldwide food shortages will become much worse. not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 all plants and green
biomass will need more water which will mean less potable water for humans and animals.

To you it might sound ok and dandy that certain world leaders and world organizations do not want to impose CO2 emissions in developing countries, and
that for some reason you might think "it will stop climate change and save the world". But take this in perspective.

China is one of the most polluted nations in the world and right now its CO2 emissions are 29% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2. That is
"right now". BTW, why do you think that even during the time when China's CO2 emissions were not even up to those of the U.S. that China air
pollutants have been worse than in any other nation?

China, alongside Russia, India, etc will continue to increase their CO2 emissions and world leaders are agreeing to allow this.

Western nations have been improving their technologies to make carbon source fuels "cleaner" from the real toxic gasses found in "smog". China
hasn't been doing this, and neither will India, or Russia, or any of the other countries that "will be allowed to increase their emissions.
That's what "world leaders and world organizations' are agreeing with. You think this is really about "saving the planet"?

The discussion all boils down to pollution though. And don't forget that too much CO2 kills humans. We're talking about us. The humans.

The discussion all boils down to pollution though. And don't forget that too much CO2 kills humans. We're talking about us. The humans.

But CO2 is not a pollutant, and right now atmospheric CO2 levels are nowhere near to what would be fatal or even harmful to humans.

I am guessing that you are right now indoors. Did you know that indoor CO2 levels are at an average of 1,000 ppm or so? yet, people and animals
live with these levels of atmospheric CO2. The real problems with the quality of the air indoor is a lack of proper ventilation, and a lack of
oxygen. If you are indoors there is nothing that will change CO2 into oxygen.

There is also the apparent belief by some people that when they hear someone dies from car exhaust emissions, that their death was caused by CO2, and
this is not true. Such deaths occur because CO (Carbon Monoxide) levels are too high, and not because of CO2. If you are in an area where CO (Carbon
Monoxide) levels are 800 ppm, death can occur within 2-3 hours.

I agree that it is very important to be scientifically accurate in all matters. It is true that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we will
achieve will not be physiologically toxic directly---that was not ever the scientific concern.

The large climate changes coming---we are heading to 4 degrees C total change, very much will be dangerous to many people because of extreme weather
events.

People radically underestimate what that level of climate change means, the scientific numbers are misleading intuitively. The difference between
current and an Ice Age, in this same metric, is about 5 degrees C in global average temperature.

You think it would be much larger, right? Massive glaciers everywhere---New York was covered in a glacier a MILE thick! But that was only 5 degrees
C, and averaged over the entire planet, including ocean, over all seasons. The effect on poles and extreme weather will be much amplified.

A Heat Age in the other direction which is where we are certainly headed to will be as catastrophic in the other direction. Some simulations show
mean summer temperatures above the maximum ever seen in a place. This means, for instance, *average* summer temperatures in Texas or Louisiana like
120 F. A heat wave would be 140 or 150, persisting for a week or two. This will literally kill people and every bit of agriculture. Above a certain
temperature it is thermodynamically impossible for a human to cool down no matter how much they sweat or breathe, heatstroke and death is certain if
untreated. Entire regions will be depopulated and be but a brown mad-max wasteland of junk.

The climate negotiations do not want to let anybody "off the hook". China, more the USA, now, accepts the reality of global warming from fossil
fuels. They are starting to do a little bit, but nobody is doing nearly enough.

Australia's government is firmly heading backwards to aggressive ignorance. And of all places---it's already freakishly hot there and they have
plenty of sun. Tony Abbott is obsessed with digging and burning toxic coal.

If it's a "natural cycle", what's the nature of the cycle? What's the physical mechanism? What are the observational signatures? How does it
override the effect from increased greenhouse effect?

Do science, and deny ignorance.

Oh right, you mean like how is it possible to blame climate change on AGW when the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 yeas before the
height of the industrial revolution?...

Yes it is possible to blame climate change on human factors because more than one thing can change climate simultaneously. The point is not to blame
all climate change on human factors which was never the scientific position anyway, but to blame on humans what deserves to be blamed, and that is now
noticeable and will be very significant.

There was a dip from 1000 to 1600 and a slow rise up to 1900, at which point the rise starts to get faster, and in the recent period still, even
faster.

Remember also that in the dawn of the industrial revolution the quantity of CO2 emitted by humans was much smaller than today---the rate we are
emitting is so much larger that most of the effect is in recent years.

Quantification matters. If we were emitting CO2 at the same rate as 1800, i.e. england digging up coal, and kept it at that level permanently, there
would be little significant impact on climate.

Or how can you blame climate change on anthropogenic CO2 when in the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect yet climate
change is largely being blamed on "anthropogenic" CO2 by some people?...

This is also scientifically acceptable. Once again, multiple things happen at the same time.

Firstly, wter vapor does not account for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect firstly, (I already posted this), it is the largest single component but not
that large, and CO2 is the other dominant component. (Because the system of radiative transfer is self-interacting, components of forcing are not
separably additive).

Secondly, humans can be blamed for CO2 changes because it has a lifetime of 100 years in the atmosphere, whereas water is in statistical equilibrium
(thanks to weather) with the large oceans and has a lifetime of two weeks, so the effect of water's greenhouse effect is to modulate, both up and
down, the effect of other longer lived drivers in the atmosphere. This physics has been known for literally decades.

The natural greenhouse effect accounts for 31 degrees C of global temperature difference, which is enormous. It is true that human influence will
change this by a "small" amount, but a "small" amount on this measure will still be very large in human terms.

Without the natural greenhouse effect, the entire Earth's surface, including over oceans would be a thick ice glacier, freezing temperatures even at
the equator. It would look like Europa from a spacecraft. There would likely not be any life higher than microbes.

...climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by
our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated.
This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming. ...

horse fertilizer....
only the man caused global warming scientists even think that southern oceans are sucking up the hotter ambient air...

the knowledgeable Real scientists are aware that hundreds of (previously unknown) under sea volcanos are actively heating up the deep water abyss-- it
ain't heating up because millions of diesel trucks/busses are making the atmosphere warmer & then causing the oceans to heat up

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.